CRA can acquire tax debt from spouses

Article content material

For those who owe cash to the Canada Income Company, it’s fairly onerous to keep away from paying up. Actually, even when it’s your partner or associate that owes the CRA cash, relying on the circumstances, you possibly can be held personally responsible for paying your partner’s tax money owed. A latest tax case, determined earlier this month, exhibits how the CRA can invoke the “joint legal responsibility rule” in part 160 of the Earnings Tax Act to gather a tax debt.

Article content material

Article content material

Article content material

Earlier than delving into the main points of this newest case, let’s evaluation what the legislation says in regards to the tax money owed of others. Below the joint legal responsibility rule, the CRA has the facility to carry a person responsible for the tax money owed of somebody with whom they’ve a non-arm’s size relationship in the event that they’ve been concerned in a transaction seen to keep away from tax.

“Non-arm’s size” refers to people who’re associated — sometimes blood relations, a partner or common-law associate — in addition to a company and its shareholders, and anybody else the CRA believes is factually not at arm’s size with one another.

4 standards have to be met for the CRA to efficiently win a joint-liability evaluation: there should have been a switch of property; the transferor and the transferee should not have been dealing at arm’s size; there should not have been sufficient consideration paid by the transferee to the transferor; and the transferor should have had an impressive tax legal responsibility on the time of the switch.

Within the latest case, which has been within the courts for practically six years, the taxpayer was assessed below part 160 of the Tax Act on the premise that she acquired property valued at $10,650 from her husband at a time when her husband owed greater than that quantity to the CRA. The consequence of part 160 making use of is that the transferee should pay the quantity owing to the CRA as much as the consideration they acquired from the transferor.

Article content material

Article content material

Between April 2012 and June 2013 the taxpayer’s husband made 4 completely different transfers of property to his spouse totaling $10,650. These transfers had been made by cheques from the husband’s private checking account to the taxpayer’s private checking account. Since they had been married, they’re clearly non-arm’s size individuals for the needs of part 160.

The CRA took the place that the taxpayer didn’t present any consideration to her husband for the switch of the property. However in courtroom, the taxpayer argued that she supplied full consideration for the switch of the property as a result of she had “beforehand lent her husband varied quantities of cash and that the cheques in query had been repayments of these loans.”

The choose remarked that so as to have the ability to justify the taxpayer’s “self-serving assertion” that the transfers had been mortgage repayments and never mere transfers of money, there wanted to be both some type of documentary proof, or perhaps even testimony from the husband in courtroom.

The one documentary proof supplied to assist the taxpayer’s assertion is the truth that the memo strains on the cheques include the phrases “payback” or “mortgage payback.” There have been no promissory notes nor mortgage agreements, and there was no system for recording the excellent steadiness of those “purported” loans at any given time. The choose acknowledged that “monetary preparations between spouses are usually looser than monetary preparations between third events.” Due to that, he didn’t count on there to be in depth documentation, since loans between spouses are “the exception, not the rule.” However, when such loans are made, the choose famous that he “would count on to see (them) recorded or documented in some method past a memo line on a cheque.” At a minimal, the choose stated, he would have wished to see proof of cheques with comparable memo strains going from the taxpayer to her husband when the loans had been first superior.

Article content material

When the trial first began again in April 2019, the taxpayer didn’t name her husband as a witness as a result of he was overseas. Her daughter, appearing because the taxpayer’s agent in courtroom, contacted her father by telephone and reported that he had documentary proof at house that will present that his money owed had been lower than $10,650. Based mostly on this, the choose agreed to adjourn the listening to of the attraction and permit the spouse to re-open her proof so as to name her husband as a witness.

Following delays on account of COVID, the Tax Court docket scheduled the continuation of the case for October 2022. After the Court docket Registry had closed on the final enterprise day earlier than the trial was to be heard, the taxpayer requested an adjournment for medical causes.

Since that adjournment, the Tax Court docket has made quite a few unsuccessful makes an attempt to reschedule the continuation of the trial, however neither the taxpayer nor her daughter made any try and work with the courtroom to discover a manner for the listening to to proceed.

Within the intervening years, the taxpayer grew to become very ailing, however her presence wasn’t really required in courtroom for the case to proceed. The choose was merely searching for her husband to testify as to the character or quantity of the tax debt which he had disputed was owing.

Article content material

Quick ahead to December 2024, after greater than two years of attempting to maneuver the case alongside, when the choose gave the taxpayer three choices: proceed the trial in March 2025, when she may name her husband as a witness; proceed the trial with out him being referred to as as a witness; or file written closing arguments by February 28, 2025, and the choose would resolve the end result based mostly on these submissions.

The taxpayer didn’t reply to any of those choices, nor to a voicemail message from the courtroom, at which level the choose was left with no selection however to resolve the case based mostly on the proof offered thus far. The choose drew an “hostile inference” from the taxpayer’s failure to provide her husband as a witness, and concluded that she didn’t accomplish that as a result of he doesn’t even have the proof to assist her assertion that there was no underlying tax debt. The choose due to this fact discovered the taxpayer responsible for the $10,650 of tax money owed owing by her husband.

Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Property Planning with CIBC Personal Wealth in Toronto. Jamie.Golombek@cibc.com.

For those who appreciated this story, join extra within the FP Investor publication.

Bookmark our web site and assist our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information it is advisable to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.

Article content material